A New York appellate court has ruled in favor of a defendant in a defamation case involving a negative online review of a law firm. The decision, made on October 7, 2026, affects how online reviews are treated in legal disputes, particularly those involving claims of defamation. The case highlights the balance between free speech and protecting reputations in the digital age.
The case, Shapiro v. Kushnick-Carr (Docket No. 2025-02617), centers on a public review posted by Sheryl Kushnick-Carr about Akiva Shapiro, an attorney. Kushnick-Carr's review, which appeared on Google, criticized Shapiro's legal services, stating, "Don's Not Use Him!! He is what gives bad names to attorneys... A Tinker of many types of law... A MASTER OF NONE!" Shapiro responded by filing a lawsuit against Kushnick-Carr, claiming defamation and seeking damages of at least $500,000.
The dispute escalated to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York after a lower court denied Kushnick-Carr's motion to dismiss the case. The defendant argued that the lawsuit constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which is designed to protect free speech on matters of public interest. The lower court's ruling prompted Kushnick-Carr to appeal, leading to the recent decision by the appellate court.
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's ruling, siding with Kushnick-Carr. The court found that the statements made in the review were nonactionable opinions rather than defamatory statements. The judges on the panel included Colleen D. Duffy, Linda Christopher, Carl J. Landicino, and Susan Quirk.
The court stated, "the defendant satisfied her initial burden of establishing that this is an action involving public petition and participation, since it involves a claim based upon a communication in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest." The court emphasized that the review posted on Google was a form of protected speech and did not meet the legal standards for defamation.
The ruling clarified that for a statement to be considered defamatory, it must contain a false assertion of fact. The court noted, "an expression of pure opinion is not actionable, no matter how vituperative or unreasonable it may be." The judges determined that Kushnick-Carr's review was an opinion, stating that it did not imply any undisclosed facts that would support a defamation claim.
The court further explained that the language used in the review was subjective and imprecise, stating, "the phrase, 'tinker of many types of law, a master of none,' is a variation of the familiar idiom, 'jack of all trades, master of none,' a figure of speech that is subjective and imprecise on its face." The review's context, being posted on a public platform, also indicated that it was likely to be perceived as opinion rather than fact.
This ruling has significant implications for online reviews and the legal protections surrounding them. The decision reinforces the notion that individuals can express their opinions about services publicly without fear of legal repercussions, as long as those opinions do not assert false facts. This case may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the boundaries of free speech in online forums.
The ruling also affects attorneys and other professionals who rely on online reviews for their business. It underscores the importance of distinguishing between opinion and fact in public discourse. Legal experts suggest that this decision may encourage more individuals to share their experiences online, knowing that their opinions are protected under the law.
As for what comes next, Shapiro has the option to appeal the appellate court's decision to a higher court, although it is unclear if he will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending that directly connect to this ruling. The outcome of this case will likely influence how future defamation claims are approached, especially those involving online reviews.